Thread: Liberty

I've never really had any strong political convictions... I have lots of big ideas but they seem disparate or contradictory and I almost feel like resorting to BLARG. Basically I end up voting pragmatically.

Recently though I have been listening to various liberty-orientated social philosophies and they seem very appealing to me. I was wondering if DV would discuss this and attack me for being a right-wing lunatic as an exercise in the dialectic method. The focus here is a consistent philosophical basis for a society rather than any particulars.

Right now I'm thinking a property-owning republic with a strong and applicable constitution is the best bet. My state would be based on the principle that you cannot encroach upon the free will of another, and also that there are some inalienable human rights (e.g. the right to life) that you have an obligation to provide and take precedence.

If somebody does encroach upon the will of another (e.g. stealing) then they should make some kind of repayment. If they are a dangerous individual (e.g. serial killer) then due to the above obligation to protect others, it is acceptable to encroach upon this individual's free will and incarcerate them. Capital punishment is of course forbidden by the right to life.

The above necessitates a police force and judicial system, and this in turn necessitates taxation. Taxation is permissible again by the obligation to provide certain human rights.

There must also be a free health service to provide the right to life to any treatable people with ailments, who are not able to pay.

Education is where I start to become a bit uncertain. I suppose education available to all up to a certain age could be treated as a human right.

However for university at least, I find it sensible that people should pay, although a good state loan system should be in place.

There are two arguments for higher education.

The first is to increase your income in adulthood. In this case it is a personal, selfish matter (I don't mean that negatively); it is an investment and it makes sense to pay for it anyway.

The second is that knowledge is inherently valuable. I could make the slightly cynical response of, 'well, pay for it then'. Instead I'll highlight one of the main reasons for the model I'm delineating: it may be so that knowledge is inherently valuable to some degree, but it does not take precedence over the fundamental principles of my state. You cannot encroach upon somebody's free will and force them to pay for your ideals, under threat of forced incarceration. I find that immoral. You will simply have to rely on uncoerced altruism.

I think that's as much detail as I'll go into for now. I'll just add that I think such a state also encourages human advancement. I am an altruist but also a pragmatist, and I think that the maximum benefit for all humans is, sad as it may be, in large part attained by harnessing human selfishness. I think that a state like Soviet Russia puts a huge damper on human progress; if such a state were enforced a few thousand years ago, sure it may have seemed like the idealistic option at the time to give everybody equal wealth, but the fallacy is that you're ignorant of the consequences in the future; come back to the present day and we'd still all be equal, but we wouldn't have medicine or... light bulbs. I'd much rather things were unequal, yet everybody's standard of living is above a much higher minimum level that it would have been otherwise; and it's still rising all the time.

Also, one of the few solid convictions I have which I alluded to at the start is the belief that technology is probably the greatest instrument for human good. My state would be totally transparent via the internet. New technologies make social problems redundant: the internet could make decent education virtually free, and so the thorny issues above completely dissolve, because the cost is hardly anything anyway. Or to take another example; a weapon capable of effectively nullifying an assailant without any serious health issues would completely dissolve the issue of others encroaching upon your free will in a violent sense, and all of the related issues of gun legality.

My first question would be: why automatically construct a state? You may disagree, but if one is attempting to set up a "libertopia," constructing a state is a step in the wrong direction (you don't have to reply to this, it's just one of my "convictions").

I don't understand what you mean. Anarchy is obviously unstable, as there is no mechanism to stop people forming their own states. So, the only question we should be asking is, given that a state does form, what is the ideal way it should look? I don't believe in total democracy because that can lead to people suppressing minorities for their own advantage (legalizing slavery of black people for instance); there needs to be an inviolable set of principles arrived at by logic and deliberation beforehand. The U.S. constitution is not a 'strong and applicable' constitution to quote my first post, because its vagueness allowed for the passing of the aforementioned suppressive laws.

A state is necessitated for the exact reasons I delineated. If there is a police force, a health service, education, and other things, paid for by taxes, then there is a state, and I explained why I think those things are logical consequences of the common liberal axiom.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't understand what you mean. Anarchy is obviously unstable, as there is no mechanism to stop people forming their own states. So, the only question we should be asking is, given that a state does form, what is the ideal way it should look? I don't believe in total democracy because that can lead to people suppressing minorities for their own advantage (legalizing slavery of black people for instance); there needs to be an inviolable set of principles arrived at by logic and deliberation beforehand. The U.S. constitution is not a 'strong and applicable' constitution to quote my first post, because its vagueness allowed for the passing of the aforementioned suppressive laws.

A state is necessitated for the exact reasons I delineated. If there is a police force, a health service, education, and other things, paid for by taxes, then there is a state, and I explained why I think those things are logical consequences of the common liberal axiom.

I think I should have phrased my question like this: What makes a state a good option for establishing and maintaining liberty? Is it only because anarchy is unstable (something I disagree with, but that may be due to different definitions), or is it that the state has something a stateless "system" doesn't?

Your statement about people forming their own states reminds me of something. In this state you've hypothesized, are people allowed to not participate in such a system? For example, if you have a population of one-hundred people, and one (or more) of them does not want to be part of it (i.e. doesn't want to be considered part of the state; citizens if you will), would they be taxed anyway or would they be allowed to live tax-free (probably with the condition that they wouldn't gain access to state-sponsored services)? Would they, in essence, be left alone? If people want to create their own state for whatever reason, would they be able to?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I think I should have phrased my question like this: What makes a state a good option for establishing and maintaining liberty? Is it only because anarchy is unstable (something I disagree with, but that may be due to different definitions), or is it that the state has something a stateless "system" doesn't?

To briefly pick up on the anarchy point: as far as I can tell, in a lawless country where people are at total liberty to do absolutely anything, there is nothing preventing people creating a 'state' (even if it's just something like a village with everybody in the village supporting a few dedicated 'policemen'); and as people will inevitably do that, I can see no way in which anarchy is a viable society. Can you explain why you think otherwise?

I should point out that liberty was not my overruling principle. My overruling principles are the right to life, etcetera. The relevant (contrived) analogous situation is one in which an innocent person is trapped in a burning building. Standing watching is an affluent man with a mobile phone, who either can't be bothered to, or doesn't want to pay for, the cost of calling the fire brigade. The question is, is it moral to compel that man by force to make the call? I think the only human answer is 'yes'. There are some rights which take precedence over the right to an inviolate free will.

As to whether a state is pragmatic; can you suggest any other mechanisms, to give me something to work with? It almost seems to me that, ipso facto, any mechanism protecting liberty and rights is a state.

Your statement about people forming their own states reminds me of something. In this state you've hypothesized, are people allowed to not participate in such a system? For example, if you have a population of one-hundred people, and one (or more) of them does not want to be part of it (i.e. doesn't want to be considered part of the state; citizens if you will), would they be taxed anyway or would they be allowed to live tax-free (probably with the condition that they wouldn't gain access to state-sponsored services)? Would they, in essence, be left alone? If people want to create their own state for whatever reason, would they be able to?

It's things like this that make me feel like resorting to BLARG. Perhaps humans cannot force consistent meaning onto the universe.

What is the sphere of a state? Does it necessarily include everybody on Earth? I wasn't really picturing anything centralised.

But for now I'll stick to my guns. I'll say yes, he'd be taxed; see the above analogy. It's worth bearing in mind two things. Firstly, in my model, disregarding bureaucratic inefficiencies and the like, every penny taxed is going towards providing somebody's inalienable rights, and so the analogy is not wrong. If enough people are contributing via altruism, he won't even be taxed (also see my final few paragraphs about minimal expenses). Secondly, in my model, he can't 'declare himself out', because it works both ways: if this man were ill, or attacked, my state still has a duty to pay for his protection (although if he then refused medical treatment for instance, he is of course at liberty to do that, as we're effectively talking about suicide).

Originally Posted by tommo

I don't get how this is right-wing at all. If anything I would say left-wing.

I don't mean to be rude but I have a strong feeling this is because you are American, and the American media has royally fucked your minds. I'm guessing you're calling this left-wing because lefties are supposed the nice guys who want to legalise drugs (and my state would legalise all of them) and the people on the right are the bastards who support capital punishment (which my state abhors) or suppress various 'unorthodox' religious beliefs (again my state doesn't tolerate this).

What left-wing actually means is the state intervening to create 'social equality' (by taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people); it means large government. My government is bare bones.

I disagree about education. It should be paid for in taxes. You say selfishness is what advances our civilisation. I say bullshit.
Education and creating new technology does.

You ignore my entire point though, which is about the fundamental moral basis. You are threatening people with imprisonment for not paying for your education and your lofty ideals. Please respond to this.

Even with a sponsored program, many people will be hesitant to commit owing $100,000 to the government.

I don't understand why you think you'd owe it to the government. You owe it to the university. All the government does is ensure there is a fair loan system that doesn't dissuade poor people from applying.

I'm in that position right now coz I don't know whether I will want to stay on the same path of education.
That $100,000 is selfishness. Universities could run at a hundredth of that admittance cost. Paying their staff quite well.

Why do you think they're obliged to you? Perhaps I consider myself an excellent pedagogue and want to set up a private 'university'. You're going to force me to accept $1,000? What claim do you have on me, and my personal enterprises? If people think I'm charging too much, let them go elsewhere.

Selfishness also encourages people to not share their ideas.

Erm no. Why do you even think this? Selfishness encourages people to develop their ideas, often putting huge amounts of money and time into them, and sell them. Knowing that your idea does not remain yours, and that you will get zero personal benefit from it, is what encourages people to not strive to achieve their ideas. All you have to do is consider history, and the products of the entrepreneurial drive of communist Russia compared to industrial Germany. Just think of all the amazing things those Ruskies came up with, for the common good. Like I say, I'm an altruist, but a pragmatist. This state isn't for me; if I made a lot of money, I'd donate almost all of my profits to charitable enterprises (such as education). But I know I'm a special case, and that the best results for all come from harnessing a selfish desire to achieve and attain.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't mean to be rude but I have a strong feeling this is because you are American, and the American media has royally fucked your minds. I'm guessing you're calling this left-wing because lefties are supposed the nice guys who want to legalise drugs (and my state would legalise all of them) and the people on the right are the bastards who support capital punishment (which my state abhors) or suppress various 'unorthodox' religious beliefs (again my state doesn't tolerate this).

What left-wing actually means is the state intervening to create 'social equality' (by taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people); it means large government. My government is bare bones.

I'm Australian. But seeing as that is basically the accepted definition now. Even if it wasn't the original definition. I'll stick by it. But this is pretty much besides the point of the discussion. So I'm not going to argue it any further.

Originally Posted by Xei

You ignore my entire point though, which is about the fundamental moral basis. You are threatening people with imprisonment for not paying for your education and your lofty ideals. Please respond to this.

And you are saying everyone has to pay taxes. Why is this?
I am saying that people should pay for everyone's education because it improves society as a whole and helps us advance and have better lives. Education is obviously the key to everything we have now in this society, making people suffer for it is fucking insane.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't understand why you think you'd owe it to the government. You owe it to the university. All the government does is ensure there is a fair loan system that doesn't dissuade poor people from applying.

Oh, well, right now in Aus the government pays for it and you pay them back. I just assumed your state would do the same. Didn't really think about it.

But I don't know how the university owner/s would pay for everything for the first 4 years or so while people get their degrees, when they're doing everything for free, paying staff and will only get slow return for years after that.

Originally Posted by Xei

Why do you think they're obliged to you? Perhaps I consider myself an excellent pedagogue and want to set up a private 'university'. You're going to force me to accept $1,000? What claim do you have on me, and my personal enterprises? If people think I'm charging too much, let them go elsewhere.

The problem is, people do not have anywhere else to go. Every university charges pretty much identical prices.
And there obviously wouldn't be any tax funded universities in your system.

Originally Posted by Xei

Erm no. Why do you even think this? Selfishness encourages people to develop their ideas, often putting huge amounts of money and time into them, and sell them. Knowing that your idea does not remain yours, and that you will get zero personal benefit from it, is what encourages people to not strive to achieve their ideas. All you have to do is consider history, and the products of the entrepreneurial drive of communist Russia compared to industrial Germany. Just think of all the amazing things those Ruskies came up with, for the common good. Like I say, I'm an altruist, but a pragmatist. This state isn't for me; if I made a lot of money, I'd donate almost all of my profits to charitable enterprises (such as education). But I know I'm a special case, and that the best results for all come from harnessing a selfish desire to achieve and attain.

But of course you still gain, because everyone gains.
You gain by advancing your entire civilisation.
If you keep your idea under copyright and all that rubbish, people have to reinvent the wheel just to get another better product out.

It's just so obvious that selfishness does no good. Take Microsoft for example.
They owned basically the only OS for quite a while. Of course there are minority ones, but basically everybody used Windows.
If there was no copyright on it, and people were free to change it and use parts of their source code, there would be much better OS's much more quickly.

Assume they are doing this for the betterment of civilisation because this helps people use computers more efficiently which helps us advance our technology.

This is a bit contrived because altruism is just disguised selfishness. But I hope you get my point.

I agree that a privatised police force and judicial system is totally unworkable. Yes, moral people want to pay for a moral police force, and competition would come into play here. But immoral people have a huge incentive for funding corrupt police forces who arrest or kill their enemies, enforce theft, et al. And who is going to hold this corrupt police force to rights exactly? Another police force? This isn't law and order, this is gang warfare.

Originally Posted by tommo

And you are saying everyone has to pay taxes. Why is this?

I don't think you can have read my initial post very diligently. I explicated the principles for this in detail. What are yours?

I am saying that people should pay for everyone's education because it improves society as a whole and helps us advance and have better lives. Education is obviously the key to everything we have now in this society, making people suffer for it is fucking insane.

You still aren't answering my question though. Are you saying it is moral to threaten somebody with forced imprisonment due to your belief that education is good?

I think the equating 'paying' with 'suffering' is kinda silly. It is your conviction that education is an inherent good, yet you won't pay for it; you consider your own funding of your own ideal to be evil. In a sense you are refusing to practice what you preach; moreover, you're forcing everybody else to practice what you preach at the point of a gun.

The problem is, people do not have anywhere else to go. Every university charges pretty much identical prices.
And there obviously wouldn't be any tax funded universities in your system.

Again you're not facing my point head on. Are you conceding that you do indeed believe that you have a personal hold on me, and that you can force me to not set up my university? This seems like an extreme encroachment upon my freedoms. You have no business telling me what enterprises I can or cannot initiate, and you have no business telling members of the public not to engage with my enterprise.

But of course you still gain, because everyone gains.
You gain by advancing your entire civilisation.
If you keep your idea under copyright and all that rubbish, people have to reinvent the wheel just to get another better product out.

So, I invest hundreds of thousands of pounds of my own money into creating a working idea... and you're saying that idea doesn't belong to me? You're saying it's yours? And you think, realistically, that people are still going to sacrifice their blood, sweat, and tears for this?

It's just so obvious that selfishness does no good. Take Microsoft for example.
They owned basically the only OS for quite a while. Of course there are minority ones, but basically everybody used Windows.
If there was no copyright on it, and people were free to change it and use parts of their source code, there would be much better OS's much more quickly.

...and you think Windows would have ever been developed in the first place if absolutely anybody can legally copy it onto a CD and sell it to anybody else? Or give it away? Okay.

This is a bit contrived because altruism is just disguised selfishness. But I hope you get my point.

That seems a very cynical position. I'm pretty sure most philanthropists are doing what they do because they believe it's good, not because they'll get personal benefits.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

You said you've been listening to liberty-oriented philosophies lately and that they were appealing, and you proceeded to lay out a plan for a property-owning republic. That's why I figured liberty would be your overruling principle.

The example you give is certainly dire and I think in most situations people would be on the phone immediately calling for the police, if not in fear of innocent people getting hurt, then in fear of having the fire spreading and possibly destroying their own property. But the question is whether it would be moral to force him to make the phone call when he doesn't want to.

I could try to answer the question, but I don't think lifeboat situations such as these reasonably apply to questions of morality. It is abnormal to have someone refuse to call the fire department, and I think codes of ethics rely on how people normally act, not in extreme situations. But let's say it is right to force the man to call the fire department. We can't forget that he has still been aggressed against, and that he is in his rights to defend himself.

I don't think the analogy is a misfire at all. All taxes in my state go to providing inalienable human rights. Refusing to incur minor costs or inconveniences is, then, well matched to my analogy. People experience serious hardships, even death, as a result of this inaction. I don't think it's abnormal at all that somebody might refuse to pay taxes; this is an issue of clear pertinence to the philosophy of the state. I don't think it is morally right for the man to violently defend himself against somebody trying to force him to make the call.

I just realised; it's kinda funny that I'm so concerned about whether this is moral or not, and almost giving up and just resorting to accepting current political systems, when current political systems are ten times more radical in this respect.

What gives your state the legitimacy to provide services for those rights?

I'm not sure entirely what you mean. The actions I delineated are held to be inherently moral based on the deductions from those basic principles. This is why it is an imperative to create such a state and enforce those services.

Originally Posted by Xei

To briefly pick up on the anarchy point: as far as I can tell, in a lawless country where people are at total liberty to do absolutely anything, there is nothing preventing people creating a 'state' (even if it's just something like a village with everybody in the village supporting a few dedicated 'policemen'); and as people will inevitably do that, I can see no way in which anarchy is a viable society. Can you explain why you think otherwise?

Well, like most things, it's a matter of economics. Having a market centered around the things people desire seems, to me at least, like a much better alternative to having a state muddled with its inefficiencies and inconsistencies providing the same services. This includes things that one would normally consider a core part of the job of the state, i.e. providing justice, security/protection, etc. It also includes peripheral things such as healthcare. The reason why I think this would be viable over a state is the success of the market in providing people with what they want. There are some areas that remain unsatisfied, but that is due to, in large part, restrictions by the state. In essence, people are served better in the market, which they themselves participate in on a daily basis, than they are under a state, who suffer from calculation and knowledge problems (basically, attempting to appease everybody all at once).

I hate to say something to the effect of "they would realize how shitty the state is and would adopt anarchism," as that is something I hear from Venus Project supporters ("everyone would realize how much better life is without money and they would abandon it!"), and I find it to be a lackluster argument, but I think it reasonably sums up my argument.

I would make the concession, however, that if people decide to form their own states and maintain it voluntarily (as in, people join, operate in, and leave voluntarily), I don't necessarily see a problem. Of course, if it's voluntary, by definition it doesn't qualify as a state, so the problem of people creating their own states doesn't apply in this situation.

I should point out that liberty was not my overruling principle. My overruling principles are the right to life, etcetera. The relevant (contrived) analogous situation is one in which an innocent person is trapped in a burning building. Standing watching is an affluent man with a mobile phone, who either can't be bothered to, or doesn't want to pay for, the cost of calling the fire brigade. The question is, is it moral to compel that man by force to make the call? I think the only human answer is 'yes'. There are some rights which take precedence over the right to an inviolate free will.

You said you've been listening to liberty-oriented philosophies lately and that they were appealing, and you proceeded to lay out a plan for a property-owning republic. That's why I figured liberty would be your overruling principle.

The example you give is certainly dire and I think in most situations people would be on the phone immediately calling for the police, if not in fear of innocent people getting hurt, then in fear of having the fire spreading and possibly destroying their own property. But the question is whether it would be moral to force him to make the phone call when he doesn't want to.

I could try to answer the question, but I don't think lifeboat situations such as these reasonably apply to questions of morality. It is abnormal to have someone refuse to call the fire department, and I think codes of ethics rely on how people normally act, not in extreme situations. But let's say it is right to force the man to call the fire department. We can't forget that he has still been aggressed against, and that he is in his rights to defend himself.

As to whether a state is pragmatic; can you suggest any other mechanisms, to give me something to work with? It almost seems to me that, ipso facto, any mechanism protecting liberty and rights is a state.

I lightly touched on this above and in the past, but my answer has typically been: the market.

It's things like this that make me feel like resorting to BLARG. Perhaps humans cannot force consistent meaning onto the universe.

What is the sphere of a state? Does it necessarily include everybody on Earth? I wasn't really picturing anything centralised.

Well, it must be a coercive monopoly over a given territorial area. It doesn't have to be centralized (depends on what you mean by centralized, though). It also doesn't have to include everybody on earth. It could include 33,000 people like Liechtenstein, or 300 million like the U.S. The sphere of a state is whatever services it provides, or its borders. Of, if you're like the U.S., it stretches as far as its influence .

But for now I'll stick to my guns. I'll say yes, he'd be taxed; see the above analogy. It's worth bearing in mind two things. Firstly, in my model, disregarding bureaucratic inefficiencies and the like, every penny taxed is going towards providing somebody's inalienable rights, and so the analogy is not wrong. If enough people are contributing via altruism, he won't even be taxed (also see my final few paragraphs about minimal expenses). Secondly, in my model, he can't 'declare himself out', because it works both ways: if this man were ill, or attacked, my state still has a duty to pay for his protection (although if he then refused medical treatment for instance, he is of course at liberty to do that, as we're effectively talking about suicide).

What gives your state the legitimacy to provide services for those rights?

You have the workings of a good state in motion there, I believe, but it is far from a utopia.

For instance am I concerned about the government not subsidizing higher education. Knowledge is itself of value, yes, but only when it's shared. And only when it's shared with the right people. If the government fails to subsidize higher education, then those with means not and those with brains will get it. Obviously there will be an intersection of people with both brains and means, but you will get fewer good minds. It is however very hard to argue for it with your requirements. As the argument "it's for the common good" doesn't seem to carry much sway, I am at a loss. For I believe you are right in self-promotion being the only viable motivation.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Having a market centered around the things people desire seems, to me at least, like a much better alternative to having a state muddled with its inefficiencies and inconsistencies providing the same services. This includes things that one would normally consider a core part of the job of the state, i.e. providing justice, security/protection, etc. It also includes peripheral things such as healthcare.

There are a great number of reasons for why this wouldn't work. Among them, what would give a privatized police the right to operate? You might argue that they have power over those who "opt in", but obviously the people committing crimes won't. So what gives them the right to prosecute in your society? And a privatized police will be corrupt. If your governed by the market, you're governed by income. And what gives the best income is prosecuting the poor and leaving the rich be ... for a certain price.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't mean to be rude but I have a strong feeling this is because you are American, and the American media has royally fucked your minds. I'm guessing you're calling this left-wing because lefties are supposed the nice guys who want to legalise drugs (and my state would legalise all of them) and the people on the right are the bastards who support capital punishment (which my state abhors) or suppress various 'unorthodox' religious beliefs (again my state doesn't tolerate this).

What left-wing actually means is the state intervening to create 'social equality' (by taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people); it means large government. My government is bare bones.

Uh. I know I'm real late, and the argument has moved on. But this caught my eye. As royally fucked as the American news media is, the system you are describing is in fact left-wing. Social welfare systems and provisions of education and health are methods of creating 'social equality'. And your government doesn't sound bare bones at all haha.

Originally Posted by Xei

there needs to be an inviolable set of principles arrived at by logic and deliberation beforehand.

The adjustment bureau.

I don't get how this is right-wing at all. If anything I would say left-wing.

I disagree about education. It should be paid for in taxes. You say selfishness is what advances our civilisation. I say bullshit.
Education and creating new technology does.

Even with a sponsored program, many people will be hesitant to commit owing $100,000 to the government.
I'm in that position right now coz I don't know whether I will want to stay on the same path of education.
That $100,000 is selfishness. Universities could run at a hundredth of that admittance cost. Paying their staff quite well.

Selfishness also encourages people to not share their ideas.

Think about if companies were not run for tonnes of profit, but mostly to help people live better lives and advance our understanding of the universe.

This would mean the best minds of our time could get together, even if they didn't work for the same company, and solve problems together.

Selfishness doesn't lead to any good. Of course we'll always have some selfishness, and that is fundamentally what motivates us to do anything, but I'm
pretending these selfish motives are altruistic.

It's kinda funny actually that you say you believe in altruism, but think selfishness will advance our society.
While I believe that selfishness is the basis for all our actions, but non selfishness will advance our society.

Left wing and right wing and conservative and liberal labels doesn't make any sense in the US to start with. The meaning of the two depends on who you are speaking about, and if you use modern uses of words or historical ones, and they change all the time. My suggestion is don't bother with the labels at all.

As for taxes, if people weren't paying two thirds of their income to taxes, they would easily be able to pay back loans and stuff for school.

Originally Posted by Alric

Left wing and right wing and conservative and liberal labels doesn't make any sense in the US to start with. The meaning of the two depends on who you are speaking about, and if you use modern uses of words or historical ones, and they change all the time. My suggestion is don't bother with the labels at all.

As for taxes, if people weren't paying two thirds of their income to taxes, they would easily be able to pay back loans and stuff for school.

Are you joking? It would be a measly amount compared to the tax on existing things.

Spread it out evenly over the population, or place the burden on a select group of people who choose to gain knowledge for the benefit of everybody. Which one is more logical?

Originally Posted by tommo

Are you joking? It would be a measly amount compared to the tax on existing things.

Spread it out evenly over the population, or place the burden on a select group of people who choose to gain knowledge for the benefit of everybody. Which one is more logical?

This is a great point. Although it is not given that an individual person's knowledge gained through education will be used for the greater good, knowledge in general will invariably help all people by facilitating the creation of the technology that is going to make everyone's lives so much better. This would be similar to saying that you are going to tax people for medical care because everyone will have access to it. Everyone will inevitably have access to the benefits of knowledge and so by the same logic, everyone should pay for it.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

This is a great point. Although it is not given that an individual person's knowledge gained through education will be used for the greater good, knowledge in general will invariably help all people by facilitating the creation of the technology that is going to make everyone's lives so much better. This would be similar to saying that you are going to tax people for medical care because everyone will have access to it. Everyone will inevitably have access to the benefits of knowledge and so by the same logic, everyone should pay for it.

EXACTLY! Thankyou!


Xei, this is what is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Xei

And you're okay with imprisoning them if they disagree with you; if, for example, they are anti-technology and believe in returning to a simple rural life? That deserves prison?

You are the one that said this. You said you want to force people in to your system.

Why do you keep inferring things that people don't say. This is why people get frustrated as fuck with you.

Education + Transparency = Win

If you get a good education and you are working a job that benefits everyone, you usually make more money. And since you would be paying hardly any taxes, you shouldn't have any real issue paying it back.

From a practical perspective, I agree. That's why I specified inherently. I suspect much more of the difference can be accounted for by directing money to friends in the arms industry and using inflated prices to pay for covert, illegal operations and the like.

Good ol' inference.

Xei, it seems like you've made a thread where you began by asking some legitimate philosophical questions under the guise of re-evaluating your political beliefs, only to miraculously end up reconfirming the very beliefs you had to begin with. How convenient.

Let me ask you a question that I don't care to hear the answer to, but may help you grow personally: Are you capable of being persuaded by reason, regardless of who says it? Can you read another person's words on an internet forum (like this one) and have your worldview changed by them? Or is this forum just a way for you to circle jerk with your like-minded buddies? I can tell you that for someone who claims to be open-minded, you seem rather hostile to new and different ideas.

Stop whining please, I have no interest in appeasing you. I would very much welcome some tough questions, though.

tommo, either answer any of my questions about the basic moral philosophy (starting with my first response to you which was never resolved, and if you could read the OP this time that'd be appreciated), and explain why you don't accept the paths of inference, or if you can't, be a man and stop chirping in. The idea that I have vested interests in a philosophy I only started seriously reading about a few months ago is a pathetic excuse for a smoke screen.

And you're okay with imprisoning them if they disagree with you; if, for example, they are anti-technology and believe in returning to a simple rural life? That deserves prison?

If everybody will benefit from it then everyone can donate to scholarships, can't they? Why is it inaccurate to construe your position as saying that you know better than everybody, and that you are going to impose your idea on the entire population by force, rather than letting them opt in if they agree with you?

Originally Posted by Xei

And you're okay with imprisoning them if they disagree with you; if, for example, they are anti-technology and believe in returning to a simple rural life? That deserves prison?

If everybody will benefit from it then everyone can donate to scholarships, can't they? Why is it inaccurate to construe your position as saying that you know better than everybody, and that you are going to impose your idea on the entire population by force, rather than letting them opt in if they agree with you?

How is it any different from forcing those who do not want to participate in the state sponsored health care system to pay taxes for other people's health care?

What if a giant meteor is on course to strike earth and potentially wipe all life from the surface of the planet. If we are able to divert its course with our technology, wouldn't the agrarian people who did not want to be a part of the educated world still benefit?

Another more likely example; If someone is robbing their farm, are the police then required to only ride horses to their property and leave their technologically advanced cars back at the station? (that is, assuming they weren't allowed to opt out of the taxes for the police force)

Sure, let people opt in. I just don't see the rationale of letting them opt in to some benefits but forcing other ones on everyone.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

How is it any different from forcing those who do not want to participate in the state sponsored health care system to pay taxes for other people's health care?

What if a giant meteor is on course to strike earth and potentially wipe all life from the surface of the planet. If we are able to divert its course with our technology, wouldn't the agrarian people who did not want to be a part of the educated world still benefit?

Sure, let people opt in. I just don't see the rationale of letting them opt in to some benefits but forcing other ones on everyone.

Doesn't the OP discuss this in detail? ...that's rhetorical really, I know it does.

The argument I made is that the non-aggression principle applies in general, and this is on the basis of it being immoral to threaten somebody with force, incarceration, and seizure of property, for not giving you what you want, or believe in. However, there are some inalienable human rights where it is morally acceptable to force people to take action, using the analogy of a burning building. The issue is determining what these rights are. The right to not be left to die seems like a pretty certain one, hence health care.

If there were a meteor, it seems that would also legitimise forced support; although, from a pragmatic perspective, it seems extremely unlikely that self-interest wouldn't be enough to elicit voluntary action.

Your final comment is actually a contradiction of your position, you having put no cap on where force ends. Health? Education? Public transportation? Private transportation? Lavish parties for children?